DATE OF FILING : 13.01.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.4/2010

Between

Complainant : Viswanathan,

Chittedathukunnel House,

Bisonvalley P.O,

Bisonvalley,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Naiju Raveendranath)

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

Pottankadu Service Co-operative Bank

Limited No.K.165,

Bisonvalley Branch,

Bisonvalley P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: N.K.Shyju & K.M.Sanu)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party bank as KCC No.1163. He was not able to repay the loan amount because of the destruction in agriculture and also due to financial crisis. So the loan became due on 29.03.2009 as Rs.22,805/-. The complainant filed an application before the Hon'ble Debt Relief Commission. The Hon'ble Commission passed a final order on 20.04.2009 after perusing the documents. As per the order, the due amount was fixed as Rs.22,000/-. The Government fixed Rs.15,000/- under the debt relief benefit scheme of the Government and the balance amount should be paid by the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.2,350/- and interest Rs.4,650/- together an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the opposite party on 23.10.2009. At that time the opposite party assured that all the dues were cleared in the complainant's loan. But the opposite party issued a notice on 15.11.2009 stating that the complainant should pay an amount of Rs.18,050/- within 7 days. The complainant already closed his entire dues by paying an amount of Rs.7,000/- and the Debt Relief Commission has declared that Rs.15,000/- of the loan amount has been entitled for the debt relief benefit to the complainant. Again a notice was issued by the opposite party which is for paying a huge amount and so the petition is filed against the deficiency in service of the opposite party and also for cancelling the demand notice issued by the opposite party.
 

2. The opposite party filed a written version. It is stated that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party bank on 29.03.2006. But the petitioner never remitted any amount towards the bank until 30.03.2007. When the opposite party issued a registered notice on 31.03.2009, the complainant approached the Hon'ble Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. By an order dated 20.04.2009 the Hon'ble Commission ordered that the petitioner is entitled for debt relief. Though the loan was included in the debt relief scheme, till now the Government has not allotted fund to the bank. Initially the Government issued fund for sixty five persons but the petitioner is not included in the list. So the notice was issued to the complainant for demanding an amount of Rs.18,050/-. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

4. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant.
 

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for cancelling the demand notice issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.18,050/- even after the Government has included the complainant's loan in the Debt Relief Scheme of the Government.
 

When the loan became due, the complainant approached the Hon'ble Keala State Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and the order of the commission is produced by the complainant which is Ext.P1. Receipt for remittance of Rs.7,000/- as principal and interest issued by the opposite party is marked as Ext.P2. Demand Notice dated 15.11.2009 issued by the opposite party for Rs.18,050/- is marked as Ext.P3.
 

It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant approached the Hon'ble Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and the Hon'ble Commission passed an order on 20.04.2009 stating that in the present liability of Rs.22,805/-, appropriate level of debt is fixed at Rs.22,000/-. Out of that, Government have take over liability to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. Balance shall be repaid by the applicant within one year. The balance amount Rs.2,350/- and interest Rs.4,650/- were paid by the complainant as per Ext.P2 receipt. The opposite party also assured that the entire dues of the complainant was cleared. Again a notice was issued by the opposite party as Ext.P3 for demanding Rs.18,050/-. So it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. So we think that the demand notice issued by the opposite party as Ext.P3 is liable to be cancelled. The contention of the opposite party is that the Government has not allotted funds to the bank. The opposite party bank is bound to comply the order of the Hon'ble Kerala State Farmers' Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and the allotment of fund is not a matter concerned with the consumer.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to cancel Ext.P3 demand notice issued by the opposite party. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of April, 2010
 

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Final Order in Application No.263584/08/ID dated 20.04.2009 before the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram

Ext.P2 - Receipt for Rs.7,000/- dated 23.10.2009 issued by the opposite party

Ext.P3 - Demand Notice dated 15.11.2009 for Rs.18,050/- issued by the opposite party

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil